The problem with identity politics — or merely one of the problems — is that one is forced to condone and indeed cheer for behavior that would be unacceptable in, say, white males. That’s one of the many lessons we are learning from the Sotomayor nomination.
Many have commented that if the “wise Latina” speech were given by a white male judge as the “wise white male” speech there never would have been a nomination. But now the issue of membership in exclusive clubs has come up. Sotomayor has been questioned about her membership in an exclusive all-women’s business organization. The New York Times reports on a letter Sotomayor sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee along with some additional documents:
“I am a member of the Belizean Grove, a private organization of female professionals from the profit, nonprofit and social sectors,” Judge Sotomayor wrote. “The organization does not invidiously discriminate on the basis of sex. Men are involved in its activities — they participate in trips, host events and speak at functions — but to the best of my knowledge, a man has never asked to be considered for membership.”
She added: “It is also my understanding that all interested individuals are duly considered by the membership committee. For these reasons, I do not believe that my membership in the Belizean Grove violates the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
The code says judges should avoid giving the appearance of “impropriety” by holding “membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.” An organization is said to “discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership” on the basis of such factors “persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership,” it says.
A few things are noteworthy. First, the condescension toward men — we let the guys come to party — is reminiscent of the “we let women be social members” excuses that exclusive men’s clubs routinely gave for decades – and which were scorned by women’s groups. Second-class citizenship for thee, but not for me. Got it?
Second, the line about “no one ever asking to join” is rich. Certainly if one declares the organization to be “all men” or “all white” or “all anything” those not in the “all” group are going to be dissuaded from seeking membership. Isn’t the mere statement of exclusivity enough to raise concerns?
Finally, by repeating the catch phrase “invidious” she suggests, but does not come right out and say, that even if these gals discriminate it’s not “invidious” because it’s women keeping out men and not the other way around. This is the noxious double standard that many minority clubs and organizations operate under. Here, it falls particularly flat. Certainly many men would love to have the opportunity to network with rich and famous women in positions of power. Their careers undoubtedly would be furthered if they could belong to a club priding itself on its sophisticated membership. The Times explains:
According to the Belizean Grove’s Web site, the group is a “constellation of influential women” who are building “long-term, mutually beneficial relationships.” It was founded as a counterpart to the all-male Bohemian Grove, a legendary club of elite politicians, businessmen and other leaders.
The group’s roughly 115 “grovers,” as members call themselves, include ambassadors and top executives of Goldman Sachs, Victoria’s Secret and Harley-Davidson. They meet each year for an annual retreat in Belize or another Central American destination, as well as occasionally in New York and other cities for outings described as “a balance of fun, substantive programs and bonding.” The group’s Web site does not appear to mention any roles for men.
Let’s put it this way: imagine how Senator Kennedy would react if a male nominee were a member of the Bohemian Grove, explained that the ladies can come to the picnics and that, gosh, no girl ever asked to be let in. Enough said.
“The damage has been done and the lesson learned.”
Why do you assume that the lesson was learned?
Since when is it the job of the President to reflect “taxpayer anger and frustration”? His job is to do what’s best for this country, not what the masses (and his pollsters) tell him to do.
#1, she means that the lesson was learned by potential recipients of “bailout” money, and for evidence she provides comments from observers and the White House’s own statement acknowledging the effect.
Maybe Obama should just say he’ll veto the legislation, and be done with it.
Are the Democrats really going to shoot themselves in the foot with this? They rush through an irresponsible bill no legislator reads, containing specific language exempting these bonuses; embarrassed in public by what they do behind closed doors every week of the year–they vote for a bill of attainder.
Congressional behavior goes from bad to worse–and they’re outraged, as if someone made them do it. Pathetic.
…at risk of stating the obvious, what ‘leadership’ is the president exhibiting here?
does he want to be a chosen vessel of populist wrath? a skillful architect of financial confidence and recovery? the public-scold-in-chief on ‘fairness’ in executive compensation?
the more the man – and his spokesman – talks, the muddier his aspirations are
The only standard of this administration for legislation will be the CYA standard.
I agree, but at the same time, considering all that money these companies shoveled into politician’s coffers, and all those millions Wall Street raised for Obama, it’s hard to feel bad for them when their investments in the politicians they thought they’d bought forever turn bad.
Obama is an idiot who cannot say anything coherent without his telepromter. He also got incompetent, conniving and manipulative advisers like Ramhbo (“Don’t waste a good crisis!”) and Axelrod that politicize everything. These people think that this a game even if they will bankrupt the whole country to advance their agenda.
Rambho and Axelrod are no good for America.
The American Banana Republic…
The Democrat-controlled House voted Thursday to tax the controversial AIG bonuses at a confiscatory 90% rate. This constitutes an illegal bill of attainder, which is specifically prohibited under the Constitution: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto …
If only these kids truly understood the truth of what they sing…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CqZFjP4V4w
Yep – the country’s in the very of best of hands.
Well hopefully the Obama Administration will sober up…but we know where his heart lies. The Connecticut Working Families Party was founded by people from the New Party and ACORN.
Let’s see, when was the last time we heard about the New Party?
Here’s what they have to say about AIG:
“What we really need is to introduce the concept of disgorgement into public discourse. That’s the “repayment of ill-gotten gains imposed by the courts on illegal or unethical actions“.”
I’m afraid this is going to just get worse.
The positive in all of this is that companies will think twice about going to the federal government hat in hand. GM, Chrysler take note; you’ll be in the same boat if you keep your hand out.
I’d like to suggest a bill that taxes at 90% the annual salary of 1) any member of congress who voted for; or, 2) any member of the executive who signed into law: a piece of legislation they had not read and that awarded the bonuses they now object to. Chairs of congressional committees whose work is directly relevant to the AIG bonuses and who voted for the legislation (e.g. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) would be taxed at 100%.
Is not this proposed law an unconstitutional bill of attainder? If not, why not? It seems to me to be a legislative act imposing a penalty upon specified individuals. I am really interested in learning what the counterargument is. It seems straightforward to me and I keep wondering whether I am missing something (other than the fact that the majority party only seems interested in constitutionality when it suits them.)
Larry,
Some legal folks point out that the congress have cleverly planned to avoid this issue because they have defined a class of people and that therefore the bill is not aimed at specific individuals.
It is a good example of how dangerous an autocratic and self-righteous government can be when they ignore the spirit of the law and betray the principles of the constitution.
We are all endangered.
Obama and the Democrats have ushered in a spirit of self-righteous seizure of property and freedoms that is a far more dangerous threat to our civil liberties than anything ever practiced or prosposed by George Bush.
aardvarck…what they are doing is worse even than anything the nutroots fantasised GWB and Karl Rove were planning to do.
This is the result of the Democrat’s Blame Wall Street First strategy. In order to avoid taking any of it themselves, the politicians are turning all the rage against the financial sector.
The financial companies (from Bear and Lehman to AIG FP and Goldman) are not free of blame in all this, and every Wall Streeter is not a saint. I think there can be reasonable conversation about better oversight of ratings agencies, hedge funds, etc., but this is quickly disintegrating into little more than angry, craven pillaging. The House just demonstrated that it cares far, far more about “reflecting the anger of American taxpayers” than doing what is actually in their interest.
This is one of the ugliest moments I have ever seen in the public square.
Doesn’t Obama remind you of a middle school girl?
“OMG! I was so mad! I mean, like, I was so totally pi$$ed! You know?”
“I know, I know, but Timmy’s my total BFF, you know? And those other kids were so, like, I mean, like, I don’t know… they were just all up in his FACE, you know? OMG, you just don’t understand, you know, ’cause Timmy’s my B-to-the-F-and-I-mean-F!!!”
Incidentally, if companies start pulling out of TARP, we ought to build a martyrs’ memorial to the AIG Bonus Execs.